A recent legal filing seeks to overturn a federal agency’s decision to suspend a local retailer from participating in a major food assistance program, raising questions about regulatory procedures and their impact on community access to nutrition benefits. The complaint was filed by Siddiquie Brothers LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on April 6, 2026, naming the United States of America as defendant.
According to court documents, Siddiquie Brothers LLC owns Citgo on Vliet, a retail food store located at 3308 West Vliet Street in Milwaukee. The company is challenging a Final Agency Decision issued on March 20, 2026, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), which imposed a six-month disqualification on Citgo on Vliet from participating as an authorized retailer in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The complaint outlines that Citgo on Vliet has served as an authorized SNAP retailer and asserts it has trained its employees according to FNS requirements while selling eligible staple food items. The dispute began after FNS sent a letter on September 8, 2025, charging Citgo on Vliet with accepting SNAP benefits for non-food items—specifically foam plates and toilet paper—on June 3, 2025. In response to these allegations, Citgo on Vliet submitted its defense but was ultimately disqualified for six months following an initial determination by FNS dated December 4, 2025.
Siddiquie Brothers LLC argues that neither foam plates nor toilet paper are defined as “common ineligible items” under existing FNS regulations or guidance. The complaint states: “Foam plates and toilet paper are not ‘common ineligible items’ under FNS’s regulations.” It further contends that no other nearby SNAP-authorized retailer offers as wide an array of eligible products at comparable prices.
The company claims that both FNS’s initial determination and subsequent final agency decision failed to consider evidence provided by Citgo on Vliet and did not address key arguments raised by the store regarding employee supervision and product eligibility. According to the filing, “The FAD failed to address Citgo on Vliet’s argument that foam plates and toilet paper are not ‘common ineligible items.’”
Citgo on Vliet also disputes FNS’s assertion that there were thirty other SNAP-authorized stores within one mile of its location. The complaint references data from FNS’s own SNAP Retailer Locator indicating only five such retailers within half a mile—consisting mainly of specialty shops rather than general food stores.
Legally, Siddiquie Brothers LLC asserts that the penalty imposed was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence. The complaint references federal statutes governing judicial review of agency actions and requests de novo review—a process allowing fresh examination beyond administrative records. It also points out alleged inconsistencies between agency regulations and Congressional intent behind the Food & Nutrition Act of 2008.
Among its requests for relief, Siddiquie Brothers LLC asks the court to reverse both the final agency decision and initial determination; declare certain USDA policies arbitrary; enjoin enforcement actions during litigation; permanently restore SNAP authorization; or alternatively impose a hardship civil monetary penalty instead of disqualification. The plaintiff also seeks attorney fees under applicable law.
The case is represented by Stewart D. Fried of Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz PC based in Washington, DC. The matter is filed under Case No. 2:26-cv-00578.
